Public Bill Committee

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
PB 10 Equality and Human Rights Commission
PB 11 David Frank DeVere

David Amess: Good morning everyone. As I understand from my colleague who was chairing the proceedings earlier this week, there has been a full debate on schedule 1.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2  - Power to merge

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jon Trickett: Thank you, Mr Amess. I welcome you here on this beautiful, sunny morning. It is very good of you to join us again; we always look forward to your being in the Chair. Your presence makes us all feel more secure and safe, and that we will not blunder into areas where we ought not to go. I have to say that the porridge was slightly stodgy in the Members’ Tea Room this morning, but I know you will rule me out of order if we discuss porridge. From time to time the Bill feels slightly stodgy, too, but it does raise matters of profound importance.
Mr Amess, you said that there should not be a stand part debate on clause 1, no doubt because I ranged quite widely across the piece during my contribution to that discussion. However, I want to use this opportunity to mention our worries about the first five clauses, which are not exclusive to the Opposition: they have been expressed in another place, and outside the Houses of Parliament by constitutional experts and others. Constitutional experts and others are not necessarily always the people one ought to listen to on such matters, but they have raised grave concerns about the Bill. I will try to address them as briefly as possible and to ensure that they are on the record.
The Bill proposes to change the character of a series of institutions and, in some cases, abolish them. In many other cases, it gives the Minister wide-ranging powers in relation to their future. I imagine—I do not know if this is a fact—that every single one of those institutions has been created by primary legislation. Certainly, all the most important ones have been created by primary legislation, and no doubt we will talk about one or two of them today. Primary legislation is subject to the most detailed scrutiny, and there is careful engagement with the wider public. Although I cannot say that such legislation is, as a result, always perfect—no one would imagine that that is so—the parliamentary process is robust and searching. Ministers who come to the House and into Committee know they have to be sharp and clear in their arguments, and that the legislation needs to be at least reasonably robust.
The Bill’s first five clauses allow the Minister or the Executive to abolish or amend all the bodies named in the various schedules by order—by secondary legislation. The problem with secondary legislation is that, even in the form in which it has emerged from the other place, it is not as rigorous or as searching, and does not hold the Executive to account as robustly, as the process of primary legislation. One has to worry that what the Minister might present as mere administrative changes to save money—perhaps by merging personnel functions, as I mentioned the other day—are in fact giving the Executive far more powers. In some cases we are talking about institutions that deal with our liberty. We talked the other day about the Youth Justice Board, and there are other examples. For instance, today we will discuss under schedule 2 the certification officer dealing with trade unions. One has to worry that the process of secondary legislation is simply weighted slightly in favour of the Executive and, I would argue, substantially less in favour of the legislature. We know there always has to be a balance between the two. When we talk about institutions such as those that guarantee human rights to individual citizens—as we shall do in some detail—almost all experts agree that it is not right for such measures to be made through secondary legislation.
When we tested the arguments regarding the bodies being included the schedules, the two Ministers, who are decent people, frequently said that they were not yet in a position to give the Committee the details. I imagine that will be the case with clause 2 and schedule 2, and I understand that, because the process of government is complex and obviously, life moves on. The details cannot be finally resolved because the legislation is not yet in place. The problem is, therefore, that the detail of what will happen to the various institutions in schedule 2 and the other schedules will not be properly scrutinised by the legislature until the orders are laid.
The Bill is better now: the orders referred to in clause 2 are better than the Government originally envisaged, and to be fair to them, they acknowledged that in the debates in the other place. However, given that we are talking about constitutional arrangements rather than administrative functions, surely it would be better not to deal with this issue through the process envisaged in the orders in the schedules and clause 2.
As I said, I do not want to delay the Committee as there is a lot of business to deal with and we want to see the Bill complete its passage in Committee. However, it would be wholly wrong to allow the Committee to proceed without raising these questions. I put it to the Minister that some of the institutions we are empowering him to deal with in the way he envisages are central to the way the British constitution works, others less so. We have not sought to oppose the detail of these measures; we have accepted those, but asked questions. Can it be right that some of those major institutions, created after months of detailed debate of highly contested issues, in Committee in both Houses, should be subjected to the secondary legislation process? As we know, that process is simply not as rigorous as the one we are currently undertaking.
With those thoughts, which I hope will cause us all to reflect, I wait to hear what Ministers have to say. We will reflect on the orders when we reach the precise details later in the Bill.

Nick Hurd: Good morning, Mr Amess. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was listening when you said previously that you were susceptible to flattery. It flowed over you like the honey that I trickled over my porridge—which was indeed very stodgy—this morning. I will start with a few opening remarks about the purpose of clause 2, and why we consider it to be so important. I will subsequently address the hon. Gentleman’s important concerns.
Clause 2 gives a Minister the power to make provision by order to merge any group of bodies or offices listed in schedule 2. Such provision might involve the establishment of a new body or office—including provision for constitutional arrangements—to replace the bodies being merged, or the abolition of all but one body or office in a group, which would be the recipient of the remaining functions that were previously undertaken by the group. An order under this clause may also include a transfer of functions to an “eligible person”, as defined in clause 1(3), who is not included in the group of bodies or offices involved in the merger. As with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, the use of clause 2 is restricted by the safeguards described in clause 7 and elsewhere, and it is subject to the requirement to consult in accordance with clause 10 and the parliamentary procedure set out in clause 11.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to address the hon. Gentleman’s central concern: the constitutional propriety of the Bill and the opportunity it affords this place to scrutinise substantial reforms to several public bodies. He and the Committee will be aware that that issue was of great concern to the other place, and it was the subject of extensive debate and an extremely constructive Government response. A very material change was made to the Bill by dropping the original clause 7 and introducing other safeguards into the scrutiny process. We feel that the debate has been fully aired in the other place and that the Government responded in a way that satisfied the other place.
It is also worth noting a practical point, which the hon. Gentleman did not refer to, although I do not blame him for that. This is an enabling Bill that creates a framework for reforming a large number of bodies, and there is simply not enough parliamentary time or suitable legislative vehicles available to make all these changes in primary legislation. Doing so would frustrate Government priority and trigger a process that would be disproportionate, given some of the changes being proposed. That is why we have created an enabling Bill, but one that triggers a clear and transparent process that must flow for the vast majority of these reforms to be actioned.
The hon. Gentleman perhaps under-weights the debate that is allowed in Committee. We have had good debates already on some of the most contentious reforms. I suspect there will be a vigorous debate later today when we discuss the Welsh question, which will be extremely well attended by members of the public who take a great concern in that matter. I do not think the Government are hiding anywhere in terms of our need to debate these reforms and to respond to some of the understandable concerns raised by the Opposition.
As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Bill triggers a process whereby Ministers are required, once they are clear about what they want to do, to consult properly on their proposals. He did not mention, and he should have done, that in that process the parliamentary Select Committees are entirely free and encouraged to scrutinise those proposals, hold Ministers to account and publish their own conclusions. Suitable orders have to be laid and debated. Where changes are more substantial or contentious, Parliament can opt for the enhanced affirmative procedure, which builds in greater parliamentary scrutiny to the order-making process. Given the complexity and scale of what the Government are trying to achieve and the practical difficulties of seeking opportunities through primary legislation to take through every single reform, this enabling Bill—innovative as it is, with the appropriate safeguards that have been put in place and what we believe is a robust secondary process—taken in the round, is certainly a constitutionally proper and sensible way of proceeding.
The Government envisage that the power to merge bodies in clause 2 will be used to simplify the public bodies landscape in the UK, improving efficiency and effectiveness by combining the assets and expertise of bodies with complementary functions. For example, the proposal to merge the pensions ombudsman and the Pension Protection Fund ombudsman would combine in statute two bodies that already work together to provide a coherent service. Our intent is underpinned by clause 8, which provides that a Minister can bring forward an order only if he or she considers it will serve the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions.
By removing clause 2, the types of change I have discussed would be reliant on primary legislation. As I have argued before, that would slow the much-needed and widely supported reform of public bodies to which the Government are committed, and would impose costs on the public purse by delaying the efficiencies that will result from some of the mergers. Accordingly, I contend that the power in clause 2 is both required and subject to appropriate restrictions, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2  - Power to merge: bodies and offices

David Heath: I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page20, leave out lines 18 to 20.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 7, 9 and 12.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr Amess. I welcome you to the Committee this morning and apply any flattery required to proceed.
Before we debate the group, it might be helpful to the Committee to make it absolutely clear what the Government’s intentions are. We intend to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council outright because its functions are either no longer required or are more properly performed by Government. The other side of the coin in the context of the schedule, which is about mergers, is to restate that the Government seek to remove the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because I do not believe that there is a genuine desire in this House or in the other place to reform it using the powers in the Bill. It was added solely as a stratagem to make the Government rethink their proposal to abolish the AJTC and I know that its removal, which we propose through the amendments, has the support of the senior judiciary.
It might be helpful to first set out the issues on amendment 6, the effect of which would be to remove the AJTC and the CJC from schedule 2. Hon. Members will recall that clause 2 enables Ministers, by order, to merge any of the bodies listed in schedule 2. Both bodies were added to the schedule by a non-Government amendment in the other place. The Government have no intention of using the powers, which would either replace both bodies with a single new entity or abolish one with the remaining one taking some of the other’s functions.
In jurisdictional terms, the CJC’s remit is confined to England and Wales, while the AJTC has functions in Scotland. The remits of both bodies are wide-ranging, and any merged body would be unwieldy, despite a small overlap in their work. Their focus is also fundamentally different: the administrative justice system includes not only appellate courts, but complaints handlers, mediators, ombudsman and tribunals, which are distinctive in character from the courts. The remit and workload of a merged body would therefore not be manageable.
There are also constitutional differences between the two bodies. AJTC members are paid, but Civil Justice Council members are not. Further, the secretariat that supports the CJC is not in a position to take on more work without an increase in resources, which cannot be done without jeopardising other areas of work in the Department. As I have said, the senior judiciary would not support a merger, which is a particularly important point, given that the Master of the Rolls is the chair of the CJC and that there are judicial members in that body.
Before setting out the Government’s rationale for abolishing the AJTC outright and retaining the CJC, I want to be clear that the AJTC is not a tribunal, nor is it any other form of judicial body. Its abolition would therefore have no direct impact on judicial independence or judicial decision making.
In reviewing all arm’s length bodies, we considered their costs and relative value for money, as well as changes that have taken place since they were set up. Our concern, which I hope is shared by all Committee members, was to establish which functions were no longer vital and where we could avoid duplication of activity.
In terms of cost, the AJTC’s budget for the 2010-11 financial year was £1.3 million. Such a sum could buy approximately 2,900 social security and child support tribunal sessions, or 11,650 cases. The Civil Justice Council’s budget for 2010-11 was relatively modest at £312,000. It has unpaid members and little in the way of secretariat support, compared with the AJTC. With that and taking into account the technical emphasis of its work, we concluded that the CJC should remain.
Although I accept that the Civil Justice Council’s functions are similar to those of the AJTC, in practical terms the CJC is still of value to the civil justice system because it directly supports the courts by providing advice on the technical aspects of civil costs and policy, as well as on pre-action protocols. The AJTC does not have a similar direct impact on the operation of tribunals.
The proposed abolition also takes into account what changes have taken place since the AJTC was set up, the most significant being the establishment of the unified tribunals service, which is now part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That service provides a coherent system of tribunals administration and judiciary for the tribunals within it, rendering obsolete the AJTC’s tribunals oversight function.
I acknowledge concerns that in the absence of the AJTC, the responsibility for administrative justice policy might be spread across several Departments, but the Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining an overview of the end-to-end administrative justice system and not just tribunals. As part of that, the MOJ is working with other Departments that have an interest in this area, and it has built close links with the Cabinet Office, which leads on ombudsmen policy.
I now turn to amendments 7, 9 and 12, which would remove the Civil Justice Council from schedules 3 to 5. The proposals would take away the following: the CJC’s powers to modify its constitutional arrangements under clause 3; its powers to modify its funding arrangements under clause 4; or its powers to modify or transfer its functions under clause 5. The Government see no compelling case to utilise any such powers in relation to the Civil Justice Council.
The Civil Justice Council is sponsored by the Judicial Office, giving it a degree of independence from the Executive. The Government would not consider altering that arrangement, for example, by modifying the extent to which it is accountable to Ministers under clause 3. Additionally, the CJC’s constitution is one that represents extremely good value for the taxpayer. It has unpaid members drawn from the senior judiciary and the legal profession, as well as from commercial organisations and academia. It has only two full-time staff, and there is one other staff member, who is shared with the Family Justice Council. I therefore see no good reason to modify its funding arrangements using the powers in clause 4.
For similar reasons of efficiency, economy and effectiveness, the Government do not now seek to modify or transfer the CJC’s functions using the powers in clause 5. There is no other public body that could easily take on those functions, and we would not wish to abolish any of them without a replacement.

Valerie Vaz: The clause that we are debating is very serious, because an important judicial body is being toyed with. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee about why the body was included in the schedule in the first place?

David Heath: I presume that the hon. Lady refers to the Civil Justice Council. The answer is that it was put in by a non-Government amendment in another place. It was a ruse. The theory was to protect the AJTC by putting the two together, knowing that the Government had no intention of abolishing the Civil Justice Council. It was felt that, by some strange osmotic effect, the clearly valuable, useful and continuing body would protect the other. It is not for me to second-guess the motives of others, but it was almost explicitly clear that that was the case. That is why the amendment will separate the two bodies. I assure the hon. Lady that it is not through the Government’s agency that we seek to meddle with the Civil Justice Council, which we think is a valuable body. The hon. Lady clearly shares that view.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What impact will abolishing the AJTC have on the Civil Justice Council, particularly if it will add to the Civil Justice Council’s work load without additional resources?

David Heath: The abolition will have no impact on the Civil Justice Council. The two are separate. The AJTC’s functions will be absorbed into the Department, partly as a result of the changes to the structure of the Courts and Tribunals Service effected by the previous Government, of which the hon. Lady was a member. There is no impact. If the Committee is minded to accept the amendments, the Civil Justice Council will remain exactly as it is. It will not take on additional functions because it does not have the resources to do so, even if it were desirable. In the present economic situation, I honestly do not think it is likely that new resources will become available. The Government’s view is that we should let this valuable body carry on doing its work in the way that it is doing it and that we should not try to interfere. That is a widely held view within the judiciary and the legal profession.
In summary, the Government remain committed to abolishing the AJTC, because its essential functions should be performed by Government, and to removing the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because there is no good reason to subject that body to reform using the Bill’s powers.

Jon Trickett: The Minister is correct on how the grouping was put together in the other place. Their lordships had no intention, as far as I can determine from their debate, to impair, impede or in some way damage the work of the Civil Justice Council. Their debate was on the AJTC, and the grouping may have been a rearguard action to protect the AJTC’s future. I reread those debates, and a case was made, although it was perhaps not the most powerful case, for continuing some of the AJTC’s functions in a relatively autonomous body. I did not find those arguments overwhelmingly convincing.
We have heard that the Minister will protect the complete independence and integrity of the Civil Justice Council, but we will reserve our position.

David Heath: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response. One of the features of the debates on the Bill in another place is that there was a ready supply of noble peers who either had served or were serving as chair of bodies, or were responsible for setting them up. There were strong arguments in favour of all sorts of public bodies. Those arguments perhaps had an excess of partisan zeal, but the hon. Gentleman is taking a level-headed approach to our amendments, for which I am grateful.
I hope that the Committee will now support the amendment.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the second schedule to the Bill.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am absolutely delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. As a new Member elected four months ago and serving on my first Bill Committee, I hope the Committee will forgive and indulge me if my mastery of parliamentary etiquette has not reached the right level yet. I am sure you will guide me. Incidentally, as a 13-year-old interested in politics, I remember watching the general election of 1992 and I can still remember my disappointment at seeing your grin when the Basildon result was declared. [ Laughter. ]

David Amess: Order. That certainly does not come into my definition of flattery.

Jonathan Ashworth: Little did I know that my disappointment would change to sheer delight at serving under your chairmanship.
I do not intend to take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to press the Minister a little further on the proposed merger of the Central Arbitration Committee and the Certification Officer. I understand why merging these two bodies is attractive to the Minister. They both operate in similar fields: industrial relations. They are both relatively small bodies. They share the same building. They are both serviced by staff from ACAS. Given all that, I suspect that the cost savings of the merger do not amount to very much, although I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. However, their roles are very different.
The Certification Officer is a regulatory body. It regulates trade unions and employee societies. It regulates political fund ballots. Crucially, it determines whether a trade union is independent; a trade union needs a certificate of independence in order to operate and the Certification Officer decides that. So it regulates the internal affairs of trade unions and employee associations.
The Central Arbitration Committee arbitrates between unions and employees. In effect it adjudicates on applications relating to statutory recognition and de-recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. There are occasions when proceedings taking place in front of the Central Arbitration Committee cannot continue until the Certification Officer has ruled that the union or employee association has a certificate of independence. To be fair, the Central Arbitration Committee is generally seen as successful and impartial, which is very important. It has dealt with around 45 cases in the last year.
The two functions are very distinct. One is a regulator. The other is an arbitrator. I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are legitimate concerns that merging bodies with two different types of function could create conflicts of interest. It would not be desirable to have the same members of staff dealing with an internal dispute in a trade union, between a member of a union and the union leadership perhaps, and also dealing with that union and an employer. There are probably ways in which those differences could be ironed out.
Does the Minister accept that the bodies have two distinct functions? What safeguards are in place to ensure that these conflicts of interests do not arise? I understand that Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers have been in consultation with both the CBI and the TUC. Are they satisfied with the arrangements and that these conflicts of interests would not arise? Can he also confirm that because these bodies are so small, the savings would be negligible? Indeed, perhaps there could even be costs involved, because presumably there would be a new name, new stationery, new branding and so on. At least during the start-up phase, there would probably be costs involved, not savings. I would be keen to hear the Minister’s response to those few questions.

Nick Hurd: I am sure that Government Members are very grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South for taking us back to that glorious moment in 1992. I can assure you, Mr Amess, that the Hurd household, at least, was letting out a mighty cheer at that moment when your face first graced our screens.
I shall briefly respond to the hon. Gentleman, who raised some specific concerns about what he considers potential conflicts of interest, and about necessary safeguards. I undertake to ensure that the relevant Minister is aware of those concerns, and to respond to the hon. Gentleman directly in writing. I will obviously share that letter with the Committee once I have had a response from the relevant Department. We will place the letter in the Library to reassure the Committee.
Schedule 2 is an important element of the Government’s proposed reforms to public bodies and it exists to give certainty to Parliament about the intended scope and application of the Bill’s powers, specifically in relation to mergers. Clause 2, which gives Ministers the power to make provision by order to merge a group of bodies or offices, applies only to those bodies listed in schedule 2. I remind the Committee that, as is the case for each of the Bill’s schedules, a group of bodies can appear in schedule 2 only following the approval of Parliament through the primary legislative process. When a group of bodies has been listed in schedule 2, it is subject to the power in clause 2 for a period of five years. If Departments do not bring forward an order under clause 2 in that period, the listing of a group of bodies ceases to have effect, in accordance with the sunset provision created by clause 12.
I hope the Committee will be reassured by that important limitation on the scope and duration of the powers that the Bill will provide to Ministers. The use of those powers is further limited, as I have described in previous debates, by the requirements to meet the safeguards and procedures set out in the Bill’s later clauses. The powers are thus subject to the requirement for consultation under clause 10 and the parliamentary procedure set out in clause 11.
On mergers, I hope the Committee will be particularly reassured by the application of clause 8, which makes it clear that a Minister cannot bring forward an order to merge bodies unless they believe that the merger will serve the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions. The Government do not believe in reform for reform’s sake, but are seeking to create a more effective, accountable and efficient system for the delivery of public functions. The removal of schedule 2 from the Bill would, in effect, amount to a blanket removal of the power to merge, regardless of the policy intent behind it, denying the opportunity for the Government to remove duplication and increase efficiency.

David Wright: Can the Minister give us some assurance? He has talked about a five-year sunset period, but clearly the Government will want to introduce orders. My experience as a Whip, both Government and Opposition, is that orders appear quickly and are considered quickly. Can he confirm that he will ensure that Parliament gets good notice of when orders will be laid? These are important matters, and the people involved will want to have some notice of what is happening in relation to this schedule and the rest of the Bill.

Nick Hurd: I certainly can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As we have shown, the Bill sets out a process that requires consultation, and in that process adequate notice should be given of procedure. I certainly take on board the point about advance notice of orders. I ask him to bear in mind that, for the more substantive and controversial reforms, the legislation also enables Parliament to insist on an enhanced procedure.
Finally, removing the schedule would not be a proportionate response, particularly in light of the safeguards attached to use of the power and the duration of listings within the schedule. I therefore ask that schedule 2 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3  - Power to modify constitutional arrangements

Mark Williams: I beg to move amendment 55, in clause3,page2,line34,at end insert—
‘(4) No order shall be made under this section which will or may compromise the editorial or operational independence of Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 38,in schedule 3, page21,line11, leave out ‘Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”)’.
Amendment 54, in clause4,page2,line42,at end insert—
‘(3) In determining or prescribing any amount to be paid to Sianel Pedwar Cymru under section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Authority to fulfil its public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(3) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.’.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 57, in clause9,page5,line3,at end insert ‘or would relate to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’.
Amendment 56, in clause10,page5,line31,at end insert—
‘(ea) the National Assembly of Wales, if the proposal relates to Sianel Pedwar Cymru,’.
Government new clause 2—Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
New clause 5—Welsh Authority—
‘For section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru) there is substituted—
“61 Funding of Welsh Authority
(1) In 2012 and thereafter at intervals of five years the Secretary of State shall pay, or shall secure the payment to the Welsh Authority of, such amount as may be agreed between them to cover the cost to the Authority during the five year period of—
(a) providing the Authority’s public services (within the meaning of section 207 of the Communications Act 2003), and
(b) arranging for the broadcasting or distribution of those services.
(2) If the Secretary of State and the Welsh Authority cannot reach agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) by the end of August in the year preceding that in respect of which a payment to the Authority must be made, the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe an amount which is sufficient to cover the cost of the Authority referred to in subsection (1).
(3) In determining or prescribing an amount for the purpose of this section the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Welsh Authority to fulfil the public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(5) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not prescribe an amount less than the amount paid to the Welsh Authority in the preceding year or preceding three year period, as the case may be.
(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) If a resolution required under subsection (5) is not approved, the Secretary of State shall secure that the Welsh Authority is paid an amount which is not less than the amount paid to the Authority in the preceding year or preceding period, as the case may be.
(7) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by making payments himself or entering into an agreement with another person for that person to do so (or both).
(8) In discharging his duties under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Welsh Authority’s operational and editorial independence.
(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.’.
Government amendment 23.

Mark Williams: It gives me great pleasure to move the amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Arfon. Let me say at the outset that I do not intend to divide the Committee on them, in the expectation—hope, perhaps—that the hon. Member for Clwyd South will request a Division on amendment 38. At this stage, mine are probing amendments on fundamental issues that have perplexed and worried many people in Wales over the past few months.
I am sure that members of the Committee who do not represent Wales did not expect the volume of correspondence that they have received on S4C and, if they were not familiar with the arguments, they will at least be aware of the strength of feeling provoked by Welsh language broadcasting. Should they scroll through the Welsh to the English translation at the bottom, they will be educated about many issues of concern. Many of the e-mails look remarkably similar, perhaps reflecting a well-orchestrated campaign to hoist the flag of S4C in the Committee. At times, attempts are made to denigrate well-organised campaigns in the House, but I assure the Committee about the great strength of feeling on this issue, and the fact that the e-mails are similar does not undermine the importance of this debate to Wales and to civic society in Wales.
The issue has been buttressed by the report on S4C by the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I and the hon. Member for Clwyd South are members. There was a robust debate in the other place, and I commend House of Lords Hansard to hon. Members. The former Chancellor, Lord Howe of Aberavon stated:
“I seriously urge my noble friend and the Government to refrain from including S4C in any part of this legislation. It is manifest from the quality and nature of this debate that S4C is something more significant than a mere instrument.”
He went on to suggest that the late Lord Whitelaw
“created S4C and would be turning and revolving in his grave, whether speaking Latin or English, in his denunciation of this proposal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1634.]
We must be confident that the Welsh language television channel has the resources to provide a unique service for the community, the editorial and operational independence required to provide plurality, and the ability to take bold decisions to provide interesting and diverse programming for the future and meet the challenges of the multi-media age. My concern is that we have no plans before us that provide confidence in a strong future for S4C, which is why we should remove it from the provisions in the Bill.
We have few guarantees. The Government have acknowledged through an amendment that sufficient resources will be provided, but there are no criteria to define “sufficient”. There are many sentiments about the preservation of editorial independence but no guarantees, and therefore amendment 55 seeks to ensure the operational, as well as editorial, independence of S4C, which is crucial if we are to maintain a focus on the provision of Welsh-language television.
We cannot be content with S4C providing a bare minimum of Welsh-language content to satisfy statutory remits. It must continue as a quality broadcaster. In the Welsh Affairs Committee, we heard much about quality, particularly that of children’s programming and drama. Of course, S4C is not only a broadcaster but a vital tool for furthering the Welsh Government’s policies on the Welsh language.
For many Welsh learners—myself included—S4C is an invaluable tool for learning the language. It plays an integral part in a truly bilingual Wales, to which all four parties in Wales subscribe, and the holistic approach adopted by three Assembly Governments of different political persuasions. This is not a peripheral side issue about a broadcaster; it is increasingly relevant to anglicised Wales as it is to y fro Gymraeg—the Welsh heartland. While broadcasting is not devolved—although some of us may look forward to a move in that direction—and while Westminster exerts a huge influence on Wales through broadcasting policy, it is wholly reasonable to anticipate a meaningful dialogue with the Welsh Assembly Government.
Amendments 57 and 56 refer to the need to consult Welsh Ministers about any changes to S4C. The Bill sets out a statutory duty to consult Welsh Ministers in the making of an order under clauses 1 to 5 where they have competence or exercise functions. That leaves a significant gap, however, in areas where they have a significant interest but no legislative competence, and S4C is obviously in that category. Although I hope that the Government would consult Welsh Ministers on any changes, there is no statutory obligation, and any assurances that the Minister could provide would be extremely useful. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome shows a great interest in such matters. He was telling me the other day that he can pick up “Pobol y Cwm” in Somerset. I do not mean to be demeaning with that anecdote, because I know that my hon. Friend does care. [Interruption.] There seems to be some concern; “Pobol y Cwm” is a major programme in Welsh broadcasting.

Hywel Williams: If I may just inform the Committee, I think “Pobol y Cwm” is the longest-running daily soap in the universe.

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will say some more about “Pobol y Cwm” in a minute.

David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that I used to watch “Pobol y Cwm” occasionally. I hope I will not be tested on current storylines, because I last watched it when Ioan Gruffudd—before he became a universal superstar—was still in it. It was some time ago that I would regularly watch “Pobol y Cwm”.

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. “Pobol y Cwm” came up in the Welsh Affairs Committee discussions because in some quarters there has been an attempt to denigrate some of S4C’s viewing figures. When a comparison was made, for example, between the viewing figures of a soap opera in Wales and one viewed in England, it was clear that the figures were proportionally much higher in Wales than those enjoyed by English programmes in the English media.
The Government’s proposed new governance arrangements raise fundamental concerns. BBC Cymru and S4C are currently the only national Welsh language broadcasters, and they are competitors, albeit with some degree of co-operation—the BBC provides some significant hours of television for S4C. It is hard to see the Government proposing that the BBC should have seats on the board of Channel 4, but that is where we are in the debate about S4C. There is a case for looking at how S4C is run and funded, but it is hard to escape the conclusion of both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the process has been rushed.
I want to look to the future, which is what the debate is about, but I have to say that the consultation and dialogue at the start of the process were lamentable. The interim chief executive, Arwel Ellis Owen, told the Welsh Affairs Committee that, despite discussion with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the weeks leading up to the announcement,
“come the day, I am”—
this is the interim chief executive of a major broadcaster in our country—
“travelling in a car to Swansea along the M4. I turn on Radio 4 and listen to the news that S4C is to have a 24.4% cut. That was the first I heard and I know that it was the first that S4C knew about it, despite the fact that we had been having, daily, weekly contact with the civil servants.”
That was completely unacceptable and, sadly, I think it reflects a lot of the so-called dialogue that has taken place with S4C.

Glyn Davies: I thank my hon. Friend—colleague, or ally, I am not sure what the proper term is—for allowing me to intervene. He has made an important point about the 24% reduction. Does he agree that every other body funded by DCMS had a similar cut and that it would have been incredibly strange for that not to have happened? Because of the debate and discussion that had taken place, nearly everyone would have been anticipating and contemplating that that was the sort of thing to expect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it cannot have been a great shock to anybody that that announcement was made?

Mark Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a valid point. I shall turn to funding in a moment, but I think that that recognition existed. Certainly, in my discussions with S4C management over that period and in the discussions we had and the evidence we took in the Welsh Affairs Committee, there was acknowledgment that serious funding issues had to be addressed.

Susan Elan Jones: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has made the point about funding and recognises that it is an important issue. It is, however, totally misrepresentative of the situation to suggest that we are discussing comparable cuts. On BBC funding, for example, the proposed cut to the World Service was 16%, but suddenly it finds itself with an extra £2.2 million, so it is a cut of 15.1%. The situation becomes even more serious when one realises that, while S4C’s total funding of £90 million for 2011-12 will come from DCMS—this is according to the Department’s own figures, which many of us contest—by 2014-15, the total funding will be 83%, 7% of which will come from DCMS and 76% from the BBC, although there is no sense in which it will be directly allocated to S4C. The BBC’s own funding is being cut by 16%, but it is claimed that, suddenly and miraculously, it will be able to fund S4C to the tune of 76%. Does that not cause great concern to the hon. Gentleman? Far from facing a comparative cut, S4C faces a disproportionate cut and one that could be further affected by the cuts to the BBC.

David Amess: Order. I know that people feel strongly about this debate, but I appeal to the Committee that interventions should be short.

Susan Elan Jones: I apologise.

David Amess: There is plenty of time for speeches to be made.

Mark Williams: I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady. I look forward to an extended analysis of those figures in her speech after she has caught your eye, Mr Amess.

Hywel Williams: The pertinent point for this debate is the one that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the cuts being rushed through. The scale of the cuts is alarming to say the least, but the point is that they are being rushed through. The reason why we want S4C taken out of the Bill is that there has not been full and proper consultation.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a comment that I will make a little later. Funding is clearly a major issue. The Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced an increase to S4C’s budget in line with inflation, a link that the Culture Secretary has indicated hastily that he wanted to break early in the life of the Government. Given the financial circumstances facing the Government, it was inevitable—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire—that questions would be asked of S4C. Indeed Alun Ffred Jones, the then Assembly Government Heritage Minister, said when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that S4C should not be treated as a
“sacred cow that couldn’t be touched”.
The funding tail in this case seems to have wagged the governance dog. The governance arrangements of the BBC were a quid pro quo for taking on the funding. We have heard about the haste with which the agreement was reached, astonishingly without the knowledge of S4C. It was completely unacceptable that an agreement was reached in that way and that agreement should not form the basis of discussions about the future of S4C.
We now have a new proposal on funding from the Government. I have added my own proposal in the form of new clause 5, which I hope the Government will consider before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. However, we are still talking about a largely undefined system of governance in which the BBC could assume a dominant position. The Welsh Affairs Committee’s report expressed our concern that
“The BBC…will not necessarily have the particular interests of Welsh language programming as its primary focus.”
That focus is the very rationale for S4C. And that is the key message—it is about ensuring that S4C retains its focus and expertise. Given that the Government are tackling the issue of funding separately, I do not see why we need to be wedded to the arrangement with the BBC.
The Government’s new clause may well be an improvement on the lack of any protection in statute, but it still leaves S4C funding in the gift of the Secretary of State. Any broadcaster needs significant notice about how much funding it will receive and what the arrangements will be, and that is what lies behind my new clause. It seeks to provide a floor, so that funding for S4C could not crash into oblivion. It provides what is lacking from the Government’s new clause; it provides the certainty and stability that S4C needs so that it can operate effectively and independently.
During the passage of the 1996 Act, the then Minister, Lord Inglewood, said something very interesting, which gets to the meat of this argument:
“The change in the funding formula”—
That is, the introduction of the funding formula, which the Government are now seeking to remove—
“makes S4C’s income more predictable and reliable and so will facilitate planning on a much firmer basis than is possible at present.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1996; Vol. 568, c. 563.]
Later in 1996, he said:
“The funding mechanism proposed in the Bill takes as its starting point the payment to be made to S4C at the beginning of 1997 under the current formula, and it will be uprated annually thereafter by the RPI. That will put S4C’s funding on a similar basis to that of the BBC.”
That was the point that the hon. Member for Clwyd South made in her intervention—there is a disparity of funding between the BBC and S4C. Lord Inglewood continued:
“This funding will be guaranteed. It will be free from political interference.”
He went on:
“The order-making power in the Bill simply repeats the position in the current funding arrangements in the 1990 Act which enable the Secretary of State to take into account the costs of transmitting S4C. The order-making power is extended to digital. It is not intended to allow the Government to change S4C funding for any other reasons, nor does it in any way compromise S4C’s independence.”
He concluded:
“Our intention is to provide a steady and predictable income stream for S4C to enable both the broadcaster and the Government to plan properly for the future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 601-3.]
That is the key—S4C needs that certainty so that it can plan “for the future”. But Lord Inglewood also made the point that security is needed to guarantee independence and we should not understate the impact that the changes proposed in the Bill could have on S4C.
As I have said, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is speaking for the Government on these matters, understands the importance of S4C to Wales. However, he needs to take back to the Government the message that the unintended consequences of the new arrangements could have a chilling effect on the independence of S4C. A long lead-in time is required for the production of programmes and so the decisions that S4C makes today about commissioning and production will be reflected in broadcasts possibly a year or two down the line.
The independent production sector has been a great success for Wales. The hon. Member for Arfon will remember that he highlighted that issue during the last Parliament in the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on globalisation. It is absolutely critical that S4C’s editorial independence is guaranteed. I know that the Government talk in those terms, but it is far from clear that the negotiations as they stand provide for that. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the latest talks, because at this stage it is difficult to see a positive conclusion that is acceptable to both parties. That is why I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Clwyd South.
The Secretary of State set S4C and the BBC the challenge of working out the detail of the agreement. He outlined a number of features that he expects to see in the final model. Regrettably, those are not robust enough to guarantee independence. There are talks about S4C retaining its brand identity and editorial distinctiveness, but I am not convinced that that is the same as independence. There are talks about there being a BBC and S4C partnership along similar lines to MG ALBA, the Gaelic broadcaster, to begin by 2013-14, with S4C coming under a BBC Trust service licence or other operating agreement. The Select Committee and I went to Stornoway and met the operatives of MG ALBA. I praise much of the commendable work it has undertaken there, but the scenario is completely different. When I asked ALBA executives about editorial and operational independence, the answer was that it did not apply. There are also talks about there being a combined board of the authority and trust, a joint management board. The extent to which the BBC will sit on these bodies causes concern and brings into question the achievable goal of independence.
We are due to have a communications Bill next year, including possible changes to broadcasting. This would be an opportune moment for us to look at what we want from S4C as the national Welsh language television station, and how we can best provide that service rather than putting all our eggs in the proverbial basket at this stage.
In conclusion, I will once again refer to the Select Committee report, which called for a wide-ranging, independent review of S4C, encompassing its purpose, funding, services and governance. That was also the position of the four party leaders in our National Assembly in Wales: Liberal, Labour, Plaid Cymru and Conservative. That is what we need. These amendments give the Government the opportunity to take that course of action.

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and stirring argument. Is part of his case that S4C is something that should be treasured? Localism and decentralisation are important principles when it comes to Wales and its future.

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I look forward to the day when the devolution settlement extends to broadcasting. The undercurrent of his remarks is just how important this issue is to Wales. I have the privilege of representing a constituency where the language spoken on the streets is predominantly Welsh, and other members of the Committee are in the same position. The Welsh language has been a huge success story in the anglicised parts of Wales as much as the Welsh speaking ones. It is in that spirit that I have moved my amendment and supported others. This issue is of critical importance to people right across the country.
To conclude, these proposals have been rushed and we need that review.

Hywel Williams: I have been looking forward to this debate, as have other hon. Members. We have had a large e-mail bag on this, to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred. He also referred to Lord Whitelaw, who famously complained that people were going around the country stirring up apathy. There was no reason for people to do that for this particular issue. It has quickly become a hugely important issue in Wales. Much of the content of my speech will replicate what happened in the ‘70s and ‘80s when S4C was first established. Although I do not want to indulge in any major or tedious repetition of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion made, I will, as the Plaid Cymru speaker on this matter, make a few points myself.
I support the amendments in my name and those that are proposed by the hon. Member for Clwyd South. S4C is not just another television channel. Its importance to the Welsh language can scarcely be over-estimated. S4C is the only TV channel in Welsh and that cannot be said often enough. These changes should not be made without fuller and proper consideration and consultation.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion told us about how the temporary head of S4C heard about his funding formula on the radio. Clearly, in their rush towards change, the Government were blinded to the effects of their behaviour.
There should be primary legislation on this matter. Forgive me, Mr Amess, but when I mention S4C I will sometimes use the Welsh pronunciation. When S4C was first established, there was a long-running campaign and a huge public debate about the matter, which is in contrast to what is happening now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, the Government intend to bring forward a broadcasting Bill, which is the appropriate way in which to address the future of S4C. Everyone accepts that the future of the channel needs to be reviewed, which is why I support amendment 38.
Some Members might think that my contribution is too wide-ranging. I hope that you will agree, Mr Amess, that it is contextualising. To understand the issues, it is important for hon. Members to have a background knowledge of S4C’s history. If I overstep the mark, Mr Amess, I will accept your reprimand and try to temper my enthusiasm.

Valerie Vaz: The Welsh language goes deep into the psyche of the Welsh people. I do not know whether hon. Members remember but some Welsh people used to have to wear the Welsh knot when they spoke the Welsh language.

Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for that. I will refer very briefly to the history of the language as I go along. S4C is not just another TV channel but a unique social space for Welsh speakers, Welsh learners and even for those who do not speak Welsh because some programmes are subtitled. On Sunday, there is an omnibus edition of “Pobol y Cwm”, which is widely watched by people who do not speak Welsh. “Dechrau Canu, Dechrau Canmol” is “Songs of Praise” in Welsh and is watched by very many people, including myself. Some of us enthusiastically join in with the singing.
The point that I am making is that speakers of English take for granted these sorts of electronic social spaces. There is a huge output in English, from America, the United Kingdom and other countries. A huge amount of television material, be it films or whatever, is produced in English because there is such a huge audience. Those sorts of productions are taken for granted. We cannot do that in respect of Welsh because we have only this one particular channel. People commonly say that there are so many channels and absolutely nothing to watch. In respect of Wales, there is one channel and quite a lot to watch and we do not want to lose that. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion earlier on. It has also been made by many pillars of the Welsh community, including the four political parties, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and many others.
There has been broadcasting in Welsh since the 1920s, but until the establishment of S4C, broadcasting in Welsh on both BBC and ITV was somewhat haphazard. That was unsatisfactory for English-speaking Welsh people and for Welsh speakers alike. The English schedule was different for Wales from that in England, and there was no consistent Welsh language schedule. Programmes that were important for democratic accountability, specifically news and current affairs, were broadcast late at night, and one had to make a point of staying up to watch news about what was going on down the road whereas one could access news about what was happening on the other side of the world at prime time.
With the prospect of a fourth channel being established in the 1970s, there was a determined and intense campaign for a Welsh language channel in Wales. I remind the Committee about that because it is easy to forget the tumult in Wales at the time, and I sincerely want to avoid going back in that direction. Consensus was eventually reached that the fourth channel in Wales would indeed be primarily in Welsh. Prime time broadcasting would be in Welsh but, as some hon. Members know, until recently some programmes would be in English as well. After a lot of campaigning, Channel 4 is now available throughout Wales.
Consensus has been reached in 1979, but the newly elected Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher decided, in their first enthusiastic charge, that there would not be a Welsh-language fourth channel. There was an avalanche of protest. I remember it well. Indeed, I was part of it. Gwynfor Evans, then president of my party, threatened to fast on his tour of Wales to raise the profile of the issue. Mrs Thatcher eventually performed her first U-turn, despite not being for turning, and S4C was eventually established.
With your permission, Mr Amess, I want to step back briefly and speak about the new mass campaign in favour of S4C. The e-mails that you have received are a symptom of that. The campaign of the 1970s and 1980s eventually led to a consensus that cut across class, geography, language and political allegiances. It led to nearly 30 years of successful Welsh language broadcasting with scarcely a hiccup. That was the net effect, despite worries beforehand that there would not be enough material to fill the channel, that we did not have the talent and that we did not have this or that. Importantly, but tragically for some, the politics was taken out of these Welsh language concerns. I believe that it has an intensely political aspect, but although it was once hugely contentious, after 30 years of relative calm people now see it as being uncontentious.
Some Members will remember the campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, led by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that I am a dedicated parliamentarian. By their actions, the Government risk a return to those earlier days, but I ardently wish to avoid that. One young man has unfortunately already spent time in jail as part of the campaign, but I do not want to see that happen again.
I refer the Committee to the excellent autobiography by Lord Roberts, then Sir Wyn Roberts, called “Right from the Start”. In it, he recounts the events of that time. It is instructive, especially for new Ministers. Crucially, it was Lord Roberts’s advice that led to Mrs Thatcher changing her mind. I played a part in that campaign, as did many of my contemporaries—I was in my 20s then—but many of us are now highly respectable and prominent people in Wales. Circumstances led them to take part in the campaign, but it was not only young people who participated. We might face that again.
If you will allow me, Mr Amess, I shall tell a very brief story. One night, the television signal disappeared in the Aberystwyth area. When the police investigated the mast at Bleanplwyf, they arrested three middle-aged men, Ned Thomas, Pennar Davies and Meredydd Evans, respectively the editor of the premier English-language literary language magazine in Wales, the principal of a theological college and the former head of light entertainment for BBC Wales. Such people were persuaded to break the law, and I would not like to see that returning.
There were sit-ins, rallies, disruption of TV programmes, climbing of TV masts and interruption of parliamentary proceedings—the other day I asked a visiting constituent whether she had ever been here before, and she sort of coughed and spluttered and said, “Well, the last time I was here was in the early 1980s and I spent time in the cell”—which we have below Big Ben, I understand, for people who cause a disruption. There were court cases, refusals to pay fines and jailings. There was a clear danger at that time of the law being seen to be unjust and, I am afraid, held in contempt. I have a real fear that we will go back in that direction.
The Welsh Language Society is a careful organisation, and the principle that it employs is that of “dull di-drais”, the non-violent form of action. We are fortunate in Wales that that is how we were led at that time. Looking, carefully, over the water, we can see where less principled ways of action led the tragic island of Ireland. The method employed by activists was to break the law and immediately give themselves up to the police, admit their responsibility, plead not guilty in court, refuse to pay fines and, often, face prison. Some hon. Members will remember the magistrates who refused to find against people who were clearly guilty and who paid the fines of people they had just fined. We do not want that state of affairs coming back—the contemporary danger is obvious.

Glyn Davies: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest, as with other contributions. I want to express agreement with a lot of what hon. Members are saying, but to compare the Bill with those times and to refer to the sort of actions then inflames things beyond reason and is certainly not appropriate in any way to the position we are in now. There is an element of irresponsibility in referring to the riots or illegal action in the past—that is not how the debate on the subject should be proceeding.

Hywel Williams: I have not referred to the riots, in fact, but it is important that we remember what things were like last time we were in such a position. I make no apology for doing so. I certainly have no intention of inflaming the situation. As the record will show, my intention in drawing the attention of the Committee to such matters is to avoid a situation in which pillars of the Welsh community describe law-breakers as the finest of their generation, which is the situation we were in—the law was drawn into that dispute, rightly or wrongly, and that is the situation we are now in.
I will make some brief points about public policy on the Welsh language in general, which are contextual to our debate on S4C. Public policy for many years has been in favour of the Welsh language. People, including myself, argue that the proposed move on S4C is contrary to that longstanding public policy. I will not go through the entire history, you will be glad to hear, Mr Amess, but the situation we had over many centuries was that of Welsh being kept under hatches, including the penalising clauses in the Act of Union:
“no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language shall have or enjoy any Manner Office or Fees within…the King’s dominions”—
that is, someone who spoke Welsh could not get a job. The language was not banned, but there was an impediment to people getting on in the world.
A long history of Welsh being under the hatches lasted until the Welsh Courts Act 1942, which allowed the use of Welsh in courts, and the Welsh Language Act 1967, which stated that Welsh had a certain, if not full, equality. The Welsh Language Act 1993, passed under the Conservative Government, announced the important principle that Welsh should be promoted and enabled by the Welsh Language Board. Then the Welsh Assembly passed legislation proposed in 2009, I think, setting up a language commissioner among other things.
The point that I am making is that public policy for many years has been in the direction of supporting and enabling the Welsh language. Now we have this proposal, which many would argue—rightly, in my opinion—is contrary to that statement of public policy. Many problems remain in respect of the Welsh language, which I will not go into now, particularly in education and employment rights. Crucially, however, television is not one of them. For 30 years, television has been excluded from that hot debate in Wales. During that time, television has engendered the prestige for the Welsh language that has been hugely useful in what is little other than its renaissance.
The Welsh language has been in decline for a very long time. During the 20th century, it declined from being spoken by around 50% of people at its high point to around 18.6% of people at its low point. S4C has been instrumental in raising that percentage. When the census results are announced later this year, we will hopefully see the classic hockey stick effect. There will be a reversal—I might term it a Lazarus effect—and the language will be rising from the dead.
The location of those Welsh speakers is even more important and interesting for S4C than the numbers and the percentage. About 40% of Welsh speakers now live in the east and in the cities, where Welsh is not spoken outside the home. It is not socially prominent. In those sorts of circumstances, particularly for young people who are going through Welsh-medium education, seeing Welsh on TV is incredibly important. That is the social space that they inhabit. Welsh also inhabits, by the way, social spaces on the web. We even have dating sites in Welsh, and Twitter and Wikipedia—my daughter would be very proud of me for remembering all those things—so it is all there, except when one looks at the possibilities for S4C with these enormous cuts. That social space, which is important for the 40% of Welsh speakers who live in the south and east, will disappear.
My other point about demography is that the age profile of Welsh speakers has changed markedly. When I first looked at the matter in the early 1970s, Welsh speakers were largely older people. Out of 100 people in the street, if one wanted a Welsh speaker, one chose the older people. By now, the profile has been entirely reversed. It is young people who speak Welsh, and young people who use television and the other electronic means to live their lives. S4C is doubly, trebly, quadruply important given the nature of our population.
I have detained the Committee long on the history and the context, but I thought that it would be useful. I reiterate that I am in no way advocating a return to the ’70s and ’80s, but that was the mess that we were in at the time. I appeal to the Government to change their mind on the issue and to take S4C out of the Bill, so that we can have a proper consideration over a year or more to ensure that S4C’s function in providing that social space for Welsh people and contributing to language planning is safeguarded.

Glyn Davies: There is a convention that when Members speak under someone’s chairmanship for the first time, they make very flattering remarks about the Chair. I will restrict myself to saying how pleased I was in 1992 when I saw the results coming through. I hope that that meets the convention.
For me, thinking about and dealing with this issue has been hugely difficult, and I intend to support the Government position. That is difficult, because the words of the two hon. Members who have spoken so far could so easily have been part of my own speech. I will not repeat everything that they have said.

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88). Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.